People v. Hilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hilton

53 A.D.3d 1107, 859 N.Y.S.2d 880

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Hilton. Read the opinion of the Court — 25 A.D.3d 505 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 3, 2008·Published

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered April 16, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the duration of the order of protection (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]; People v Lake, 45 AD3d 1409, 1410 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 767 [2008]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered April 16, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the duration of the order of protection (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]; People v Lake, 45 AD3d 1409, 1410 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 767 [2008]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

People v. Hilton, 53 A.D.3d 1107, 859 N.Y.S.2d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

53 A.D.3d 1107 (People v. Hilton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related